Developing an objective framework for scrub nurse training: A Japanese pilot study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26550/2209-1092.1384Keywords:
operating room, nursing assessment, non-technical skills, training, education, evaluation, feedback, scrub nurse, instrument nurseAbstract
Background: Scrub nurses play a critical role in maintaining safety and efficiency in the operating room, requiring both advanced technical precision and non-technical competencies such as communication and situational awareness. In Japan, however, scrub nurse education is often apprenticeship-based and lacks standardised, objective assessments or structured feedback. To address this, we developed the Scrub Nurse Competency and Performance Evaluation (SCOPE), a concise tool designed to evaluate both technical and non-technical skills, that is integrated within the ‘briefing, intraoperative teaching, debriefing’ (BID) educational model.
Methods: A preliminary needs assessment, involving interviews, direct observations and a survey of nine scrub nurses with one to three years’ experience, identified deficits in structured feedback and non-technical skills – particularly situational awareness and prediction. Based on these findings, SCOPE was designed with five domains (instrument handling, safety management, situational awareness, situational prediction and communication) and anchored behavioural criteria. Two novice scrub nurses participated in a pilot study involving 26 surgical procedures, during which real-time intra-operative instruction and post-procedure feedback were delivered using SCOPE. Assessments were performed by trained instructors, attending surgeons and the participants themselves.
Results: Gradual improvement in novice scores was observed over time. Inter-rater reliability between instructors and the primary researcher was high (ICC = 0.9078). Instructor scores correlated with case experience, particularly for Novice B (r = 0.88). Novices tended to rate themselves lower than instructors, though this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.056). Survey data emphasised the need for more regular, structured feedback and highlighted variability in skill acquisition.
Conclusion: Integrating SCOPE with the BID model enhances both technical and cognitive competencies in novice scrub nurses. The framework is feasible and well received in clinical settings. Further multicentre studies are warranted to assess long-term skill retention and validate broader applicability for standardised perioperative nursing education.
References
1. Enomoto A. Reevaluating and future considerations of the non-technical skills assessment system (SPLINTS) for scrub nurses. Journal of the Japan Society for Healthcare Quality and Safety. 2014;9(1):48–55.
2. Miyamoto I, Yamase H, Tado A. Effective continuing education to enhance perceived nursing competence by operating room nurses: Analyses of open-ended questionnaire data utilizing text-mining [Internet]. Yamaguchi Med J. 2023[cited 2025 May 3];72(1):29–38. DOI:10.2342/ymj.72.29
3. Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN). Guidelines for perioperative practice [Internet]. Denver; AORN: 2023 [cited 2025 May 3]. Available from: https://www.aorn.org/guidelines-resources/guidelines-for-perioperative-practice
4. Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R, MacRae H, Murnaghan J, Hutchison C et al. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents [Internet]. Br J Surg. 1997[cited 2025 May 3];84(2):273–8. DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2168.1997.02502.x
5. Roberts NK, Williams RG, Kim MJ, Dunnington GL. The briefing, intraoperative teaching, debriefing model for teaching in the operating room [Internet]. J Am Coll Surg. 2009[cited 2025 May 3];208(2):299–303. DOI:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.10.024
6. Japanese Society of Surgical Medicine. Practical guidelines for surgical medicine (rev. 3rd ed) [Internet]. J Jpn Soc Surg Med. 2019[cited 2025 May 3];40(Suppl.). Available from http://jaom.kenkyuukai.jp/information/
7. Matsumoto N, Tamura M, Nakajima Y. A study on enhancing the expertise of operating room nursing: Data analysis of gaze during instrument handling. J Surg Med. 2017;38(1):11–15.
8. Flin R, Yule S, Paterson-Brown S, Maran N, Rowley D, Youngson G. Teaching surgeons about non-technical skills. Surgeon. 2007;5(2):86–9. DOI:10.1016/s1479-666x(07)80059-x
9. Ogrinc G, Armstrong GE, Dolansky MA, Singh MK, Davies L. SQUIRE-EDU (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence in Education): Publication guidelines for educational improvement [Internet]. Acad Med. 2019[cited 2025 May 3];94(10):1461–70. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002750.
10. Fanning RM, Gaba DM. The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning [Internet]. Simul Healthc. 2007[cited 2025 May 3];2(2):115–25. DOI:10.1097/SIH.0b013e3180315539
11. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Dufresne RL, Raemer DB. There’s no such thing as ‘nonjudgmental’ debriefing: A theory and method for debriefing with good judgment [Internet]. Simul Healthc. 2006[cited 2025 May 3];1(1):49–55. DOI:10.1097/01266021-200600110-00006
12. Jeffries PR. A framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating simulations used as teaching strategies in nursing [Internet]. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2005[cited 2025 May 3];26(2):96–103. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/neponline/abstract/2005/03000/a_framework_for_designing,_implementing,_and.9.aspx
13. Kneebone RL, Scott W, Darzi A, Horrocks M. Simulation and clinical practice: Strengthening the relationship [Internet]. Med Educ. 2004[cited 2025 May 3];38(10):1095–102. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01959.x
14. Eva KW, Regehr G. Self-assessment in the health professions: A reformulation and research agenda [Internet]. Acad Med. 2005[cited 2025 May 3];80(10)(Suppl.):S46–S54. DOI:10.1097/00001888-200510001-00015
15. Bogossian F, Cooper S, Kelly M, Levett-Jones T, McKenna L, Slark J et al. Best practice in clinical simulation education – are we there yet? A cross-sectional survey of simulation in Australian and New Zealand pre-registration nursing education [Internet]. Collegian. 2018[cited 2025 May 3];25(3):327–34. DOI:10.1016/j.colegn.2017.09.003
16. Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van Harrison R, Thorpe KE, Perrier L. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: A systematic review [Internet]. JAMA. 2006[cited 2025 May 3];296(9):1094–102. DOI:10.1001/jama.296.9.1094
17. McMullan M, Endacott R, Gray MA, Jasper M, Miller CML, Scholes J et al. Portfolios and assessment of competence: A review of the literature [Internet]. J Adv Nurs. 2003[cited 2025 May 3];41(3):283–94. DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02528.x
18. Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T et al. Health professionals for a new century: Transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world [Internet]. Lancet. 2010[cited 2025 May 3];376(9756):1923–58. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61854-5
19. Reeves S, Pelone F, Harrison R, Goldman J, Zwarenstein M. Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes [Internet]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017[cited 2025 May 3];6(6):CD000072. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000072.pub3.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Keita Ishido, Minami Tsukada, Rina Tazawa, Saseem Poudel, Akitaka Motoyoshi, Zen Naito, Satoshi Hirano
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
